A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

A good post on the Ordinary Form of the Mass… October 30, 2012

……written by a priest-abbot who has, for years, only offered the Traditional Mass.  Due to circumstances recently, he had to offer the Ordinary Form of the Mass, in French!, and he describes the experience of the new Mass viz a viz the TLM.  I think many of the comments made by Dom Mark Kirby are excellent, insightful, and apropos.  I think what Dom Kirby is getting at, and what I pray we all would wan to achieve, is a vastly improved Ordinary Form that truly follows the intentions of the documents of Vatican II better than the Mass we have all typically experienced for the past several decades.  You are, of course, free to disagree, but I think that if these recommendations were implemented, the benefits to the Church across the board, from acceptance of Doctrine to reception of the Sacraments to prayer life to involvement in the life of the parish, and many more, would all dramatically improve. Bear in mind, Kirby is discussing a Novus Ordo Mass offered very reverently, without abuses. The post is long, so I’ll only quote a few bits, you can read the rest at New Liturgical Movement (with comments and emphasis):

Ad Orientem

It goes without saying that the rubric of the New Order of the Mass that assumes the eastward position from the Offertory until Holy Communion needs to become always and everywhere normative. Nothing has done more to distort the ars celebrandi than the habit of offering the Holy Sacrifice facing the people. It is, in many instances, an affront to the Divine Majesty. [This may be going far?, but I think it has severely distorted peoples understanding and practice at Mass.  I think Mass facing the people has done more to undermine belief in the Sacrificial nature of the Mass than any other change] It is, moreover, a tedious distraction to both priest and people, and a symbolic and, alas, subliminal, but all too effective, devalorization of the sacrificial character of Holy Mass. No amount of catechesis, however well-intentioned, will be able to restore to the ars celebrandi of the New Order of the Mass what the position ad orientem will bring about of and by itself. Here, more than anywhere else, actions do speak louder than words. [I agree. In like manner, the removal of so many genuflections and instances of the priest crossing himself have also fatally undermined both reverence within the Mass generally, and weakened belief in the vertical, supernatural character of the Mass]

The Roman Canon

It was when I came to the Eucharistic Prayer, using the Roman Canon as adapted — I rather think mutilated — in the New Order of the Mass, that I found myself most deeply disturbed. The elimination of the traditional signs of the cross and genuflexions is redolent of a puritanical rationalism that either fears the participation of the body in worship or sneers at it; it is, in effect, the divorce of word from action, a kind of disincarnation of the text.

There is absolutely no reason to have altered the age-old and venerable words of consecration in the Roman Canon. Nothing in Sacrosanctum Concilium authorizes or justifies so barbaric an assault on a text universally regarded as sacrosanct and fixed by tradition. Fifty years after the Second Vatican Council, has not the moment at last come to repair the damage done by an erroneous interpretation and brash disregard of the letter of the Conciliar text and the intentions of the Council Fathers?

The Words of Consecration and Mysterium Fidei

I would propose, then, that the words of consecration in the Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV of the New Order of the Mass be brought into conformity with the traditional text of the Roman Canon as found in the Missal of 1962, and as used at the Second Vatican Council and in the years immediately following it. This would entail the replacement of the mysterium fidei within the words of consecration of the chalice and the suppression of the acclamation introduced in the Missal of Paul VI, which, to be honest, would be, to my mind at least, no great loss. Its inorganic insertion into the Canon has the effect of an interruption of the flow and movement of the prayer itself. [Dom Kirby is advocating that the statement “the mystery of faith” be inserted back into the Consecration of the Chalice, the deletion of which is one of the reasons why Cekada feels the NO Mass is invalid, and for the removal of the people’s acclamation of the “mystery of faith,” whatever it may be in any given Mass.  My reply is..yes.]

Eucharistic Prayers?

Of course, one needs to ask if four Eucharistic Prayers are, in fact, necessary in the New Rite of the Mass. Of the four, Eucharistic Prayer II is the one most widely used, not because of any intrinsic sublimity, but because of its brevity. It is a routinely rattled text that has longed passed its expiration date. It should be given an honourable burial alongside the breviary of Cardinal Quignonez. Eucharistic Prayer IV is used very rarely, if at all, in most places. Eucharistic Prayer III, the so-called Canon of Paul VI is the second most widely used. Has the time not come to reduce the Eucharistic Prayers of the New Order of the Mass from four to two, keeping only the venerable Roman Canon and what is now called Eucharistic Prayer III? It should, I think be legislated that the use of Roman Canon be obligatory on all Sundays, solemnities, feasts of the Apostles and of the saints named in the Communicantes and in the Nobis Quoque. [I might go further and say that Church legislation should supress all Eucharistic Prayers save for the Roman Canon]

Holy Communion

The manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful has been addressed by the example of the Holy Father, but his example has not garnered the support it deserves in the episcopate. [That is, terminate Communion in the hand as the abuse it really is and return to Communion on the tongue, preferably kneeling]  It would seem that most bishops are insensitive to the persuasive language of example  [that’s a delicate way of putting it!] and, thus, must be compelled by legislation. Holy Communion in the hand and the scandalously abusive proliferation of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are matters that must be addressed by clear and binding legislation. The grave scandal among the Eastern Orthodox Churches that these practices cause is, of itself, sufficient to warrant their immediate suppression. [I couldn’t agree more]

Go read the rest at NLM.  If all the changes Dom Mark Kirby recommends were made, I believe the Ordinary Form would be a much more worthy reform of the Mass and far more in line with the stated intent of the documents of Vatican II.  I think the benefit to souls would be incalculable.  And it would keep the Ordinary Form quite differentiated from the TLM – which I’m not sure is ideal but would probably appeal to many.  I pray this analysis garners serious discussion (not here, in the places it matters, but I always lurve your comments, darlin’).